Courts Should Adopt Liberal Approach In Condoning Delay In Appeals Filed By Convicts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that constitutional courts should adopt a liberal and proactive approach while considering applications for condonation of delay in appeals filed by convicts, observing that procedural delays should not stand in the way of a prisoner's right to challenge a conviction affecting his liberty.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the observation while setting aside the conviction of an Odisha man who had spent 22 years in prison in a triple murder case. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and criticised the Orissa High Court for rejecting his delayed jail appeal at the threshold.

The Court opened its judgment by expressing anguish over the Orissa High Court's earlier refusal to condone a delay of 3,157 days in filing the jail appeal, despite the convict having already undergone 12 years of imprisonment at the time.

“We are deeply dismayed, and equally perturbed by the order which rejected an application seeking condonation of delay of 3157 days and as a consequence dismissed the 'Jail Memo of Appeal' against the order of conviction under Section 302, with sentence imposed of life imprisonment where the convict had, at the time of the impugned order suffered incarceration of 12 years and now a further period of 10 years; a total of 22 years.”, the Court observed.

Expressing concern over the denial of access to appellate remedies, the Bench observed that constitutional courts must be sensitive to the realities faced by incarcerated persons, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds.

“Access to justice still eludes the marginalized sections of our society and especially those convicted and imprisoned from amongst them. When the three pillars of democracy consistently endeavour to bring legal aid to the doorsteps of every citizen, especially the poor, the needy and the deprived, we, in the Constitutional Courts should introspect to sensitize ourselves in taking a liberal approach insofar as delay occasioned in filing an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence, depriving a person, the most valuable and fundamental of all rights; liberty. Not a mere liberal approach but a pro-active one to condone delay, however large it is when a convict knocks at the door of a Court, in appeal, which in the present case raises some real concerns.”, the Court observed.

The appellant's jail appeal had been dismissed by the Orissa High Court after it refused to condone a delay of 3,157 days. At that stage, he had already undergone about 12 years of imprisonment. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, he had spent 22 years in custody.

The Bench noted that a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court had earlier condoned a delay of 3,703 days in filing the appeal, describing the High Court's refusal as "very disturbing". The coordinate Bench had observed that the High Court ought to have taken a practical and sympathetic view, particularly because the appeal had been filed through jail authorities by a life convict who had already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment.

Having examined the evidence, the Supreme Court found serious infirmities in the prosecution case. It held that the conviction rested solely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose version was riddled with improbabilities and inconsistencies. The Court also pointed to significant investigative lapses, including contradictions regarding the recovery of the alleged murder weapons, the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, and reliance on an inadmissible confession allegedly extracted through third-degree methods.

Holding that the prosecution case left "a lot to be desired" and that a serious doubt persisted regarding the appellant's guilt, the Bench acquitted him by extending the benefit of doubt.

In a strongly worded conclusion, the Court observed that the case reflected multiple failures within the criminal justice system.

It remarked that while three women had lost their lives, a person had been taken into custody "on mere suspicion", an inadmissible confession had allegedly been extracted through third-degree methods, the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence, and the High Court had remained "a moot spectator while adding to the tally of disposals", resulting in "22 years being erased out of a person's life without any reliable evidence."

The Court also directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to undertake measures for the appellant's rehabilitation and resettlement with the assistance of the District Administration.

Also from the judgment:  Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict After 22 Years In Jail, Flags Collective Failure Of Criminal Justice System

Cause Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Versus State of Orissa